April 28, 2008 TO: W. P. (Ward) Beyermann, Vice Chair, (Department of Physics and Astronomy) J. E. (Julian) Allison, Chair, Diversity and Equal Opportunity, (Department of

Political Science) C. (Chris) Chase-Dunn, Chair, Committee on Academic Personnel, (Department

of Sociology) A. (Anil) Deolalikar (Anil), Chair, Committee on Research, (Department of

Economics) I. (Ilya) Dumer, Chair, Graduate Council, (Department of Electrical Engineering) J. (John) M. Ganim, Chair, Committee on Committees, (Department of English) J. (John) Haleblian, Chair AGSM Executive Committee, (A. Gary Anderson

Graduate School of Management) A. S. (Andrew) Jacobs, Secretary Parliamentarian, (Department of Religious

Studies) D. (Dan) Jeske, Chair, Academic Computing & Information Technology,

(Department of Statistics) P. (Pierre) Keller, Chair, Committee on Educational Policy, (Department of

Philosophy) C. J. (Carol) Lovatt, Representative to the Assembly, (Department of Botany and

Plant Sciences) D. (Doug) Mitchell, Chair, GSOE Executive Committee M. (Mart) L. Molle, Junior Representative to the Assembly, (Department of

Computer Science and Engineering) A. (Tony) W. Norman, Chair, Planning and Budget (Department of Biochemistry) L. (Len) P. Nunney, Chair, CNAS Executive Committee, (Department of Biology) T. (Tom) C. Patterson, Chair CHASS Executive Committee, (Department of

Anthropology) R. (Rick) Redak, Chair, Faculty Welfare, (Department of Entomology) P. (Pete) M. Sadler, Chair, Undergraduate Council (Department of Earth

Sciences) D. (Deborah), Willis Chair, Preparatory Education Committee, (Department of

English) K. (Kambiz) Vafai, Chair, Physical Resources Planning, (Department of

Mechanical Engineering) F. (Frank) M. Vahid, Chair, COE Executive Committee, (Computer Science &

Engineering) A. (Ameae) M. Walker, Chair, Division of Biomedical Sciences, (Biomedical

Sciences) FR: T. Cogswell, Chair Riverside Division RE: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AGENDA – APRIL 28, 2008 This is to confirm the meeting of the Executive Council on Monday, April 28, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 210 University Office Building. PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN VENUE.

Please let me know your attendance plans. A light lunch will be served!!

2

Following is the agenda - please print out a copy and the attachments and bring them to the meeting.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5 min Action items: Approval of the agenda (page 1 - 2) Approval of the 04-14-08 notes (Attached) (page 3 - 6)

2. EVC& PROVOSOT ELLEN WARTELLA - re-organization of Conflict Resolution 30 min 3. RECONSTITUTION OF THE UCR A. GARY ANDERSON GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

(AGSM) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE B S DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO AGSM (see Attached) (page 7 - 28) 20 min

4. PROPOSED SENATE RESTRUCTURING (see Attached) (page 29 - 35) 20 min

discuss the proposed senate restructure and decide on a course of action

5. REVISED BOARS’ PROPOSAL TO REFORM UC ELIGIBILITY POLICY: Discussion and action (click here to review the Revised BOARS proposal)

6. REMARKS BY THE CHAIR: 20 min

3

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING NOTES APRIL 14, 2008

PRESENT: T. (Tom) Cogswell, Chair, (Department of History) W. P. (Ward) Beyermann, Vice Chair, (Department of Physics and Astronomy) Andrew S. Jacobs, Secretary-Parliamentarian (Department of Religious Studies) Ilya Dumer, Chair, Graduate Council, (Electrical Engineering) Anil Deolalikar, Chair, Research (Economics Department) J. Ganim, Chair, Committee on Committees, (Department of English) J. Haleblian, Chair, AGSM Executive Committee, (A Gary Anderson School of Management) D. Jeske, Chair, Academic Computing & Information Tech, (Department of Statistics) P. Keller, Chair, Committee on Educational Policy, (Department of Philosophy) Douglas Mitchell, Chair, GSOE Executive Committee, (Graduate School of Education) A. W. (Tony) Norman, Chair, Planning and Budget (Department of Biochemistry) L.P. (Len) Nunney, Chair, CNAS Executive Committee, (Department of Biology) R. (Rick) Redak, Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare, (Department of Entomology) P. Sadler, Chair, Undergraduate Council, (Department of Earth Sciences) K. Vafai, Chair, Physical Resources Planning, (Department of Mech Engineering) A. Walker, Chair, Division of Biomedical Sciences Executive Committee, (Department of Biomedical Sciences) D. (Deborah) Willis, Chair, Preparatory Education Committee, (Department of English) ABSENT: J. E. Allison, Chair, Committee on Diversity & Equal Opportunity, (Department of Political Science) C. Chase-Dunn, Chair, Committee on Academic Personnel, (Sociology) C. (Carol) Lovatt, Senior Representative to the Assembly, (Department of Botany & Plant Sciences) M. L. Molle, Representative to the Assembly, (Department of Computer Science & Engineering) T. Patterson, Chair, CHASS Executive Committee, (Department of Anthropology) F. Vahid, Chair, BCOE Executive Committee, (Department of Computer Science & Engr) GUESTS: Ted Garland Jim Sandoval, Vice Chancellor Student Services Larae Lundgren, Acting Registrar CONSENT CALENDAR: The notes were approved with no changes. RECONSTITUTION OF THE UCR A. GARY ANDERSON GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (AGSM) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE B.S DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO AGSM The wrong document was attached to the proposal and the item was deferred until the next EC meeting.

4

ACADEMIC SENATE BUDGET: Chair Cogswell brought to the EC’s attention, the dire situation regarding the budget – and his desire for advice from the EC regarding how to deal with the budget cuts as it relates to the Senate. He informed the EC members that he has been trying to get all the divisions to work together on the budget cuts but so far nothing has been resolved. He pointed out that most of the Senate budget is comprised of staff salaries and research grant funds. Two years ago we got an augmentation that raised the research funds to $600,000. Even though the Senate has carryforward funds, the administration is only interested in permanent cuts. He also pointed out that the carryforward funds that the Senate currently has in its budget has already been committed for research grants. He indicated that his view is that research funds should at all costs not be cut. There was also a discussion on whether the budget cuts should include the Senate S&E which is relatively small too. The cuts are supposed to be in the range of 3% to 5%. Chair Cogswell has pressed on campus to have a 10 year review of spending and particularly how the campus weathered the last cuts. He noted that it was hard to find easy cuts right now. He felt that if he had a choice, he would rather cut the Senate S&E and take away the lunches/meals that we are currently providing the committees. The EC members agreed that to save funds, they would stop the lunches/meals immediately. Earle C. Anthony Endowment Fund in the amount of $10,000 was also discussed and Chair Cogswell informed the members that the purpose for the fund as stipulated in the Endowment letter was “to be distributed among all of the UC’s other campuses upon the basis of a moving three-year average of numbers of graduate students in the biological, physical, agricultural, and health sciences, engineering and mathematics t aid graduate students or other personnel of the university in those fields to obtain scientific education or to pursue scientific research.” Chair Cogswell asked the members whether they would like to spend the funds on a faculty or a graduate student. By a majority vote, the EC members approved a motion to award the funds to a graduate student. Chair Cogswell indicated that he will appoint a committee to discuss the mechanism for distribution of the funds, and that he will talk to the Deans to see if they could match the funds. CHANGE IN DEADLINES FOR GRADE SUBMISSIONS: The issue of the change in deadlines for grade submission was discussed especially because a number of Senate committees felt that it was a violation of academic freedom. VC Jim Sandoval and Interim Registrar Larae Lundgren were present to answer questions and to indicate why the changes occurred. It was noted that the deadline changed because of a winter holiday – and the EC members were reassured that this would not happen next winter. Spring has no holidays so the deadlines go back to normal. With iGrade right now the faculty has 2 more days to submit their grades. Larae Lundgren indicated that we are the only UC campus that has a dual grade processes. Her office has been dealing with Deans and the Chairs and Deans have signed off that by fall 2008, iGrade will be the only way to submit grades. The EC members indicated that the main issue was the lack of communication between the faculty and the Registrar’s office. It was recommended that in the future issues like setting of the Academic Calendar or changes in deadlines such as what was being discussed should include the Chair of CEP as a point focus.

5

REMARKS BY THE CHAIR: Regulation 8 – Classroom Disruption update from Michele Coyle Chair Cogswell reported back that the Campus Attorney had indicated that APM-015 (1) (b) already holds faculty accountable for significant intrusions of material unrelated to the course. Accordingly, the authority to deal with the problems that have come to the attention of the Committee already exists, and the actions that are proposed in Regulation 8 can already be taken by a faculty member confronted with these problems. The EC members agreed that a general letter will be sent out to the faculty every September that will have the following language:

Each faculty member, according to APM-015 (1) (b), is responsible for what happens in her/his classroom. Therefore s/he is under no obligation to permit anyone to address the class, whether that person is a student and/or a representative of any campus organization, outside company, or any other announced or unannounced visitor who has not been authorized by the faculty member to speak in the classroom (this is barring some unforeseen emergency and an interruption from law enforcement or other campus personnel to give a mandatory announcement). The final decision as to who is authorized to speak in a faculty member’s classroom is at the discretion of individual faculty members. They are however strongly encouraged to protect instruction time from any interruption.

Vivaria – follow-up: Ted Garland, a member of Faculty Welfare was invited to give an update. He indicated that the VC Research Charles Louis’s effort to try and get funding from NIH to pay the $500,000 he was given by the administration and he has to pay back these funds with interest – the charges would be charged to existing animal users. Even with the half a million dollar, the space is still only half operational – they still need about ½ million to make it operational for HSRI, the Medical School etc. VC Louis is trying to work on a more seamless transition plan – with a proposal to have modest increase with the administration taking care of the difference. Update on the University Club Chair Cogswell indicated that he met with Vice Chancellor Gretchen Bolar and Tim Ralston to discuss the proposal for a University Club and that one of the points raised was to blend the proposal with plans for a Conference facility. He indicated that it was suggested that a joint senate/administration task force be formed to come up with a proposal for the club to be presented to the new Chancellor. The question still remains on who will pay for the feasibility study. Graduate Council Report: Chair Cogswell indicated that this was on-going. General Education Report: The Engineers are looking at it and will get back to Chair Cogswell soon with a proposal for the Ad Hoc Committee to review.

6

Funding Crisis: Vice Chair Ward Beyermann indicated that he wanted to get EC approval for him to send the memo he passed out which was in regard to funding crisis that is occurring to the physical sciences. All the agencies involved in funding of physical sciences have seen a dramatic cut to their funding research last year contrary to a passage of the America COMPETES Act. He would like to ask that Chair Michael Brown as the Chair of the Senate to try and get the Regents to act on the UC’s behalf with the legislators. Chair Cogswell indicated that it would probably be better if the EC sent the memo in the form of a resolution. The EC members approved a motion to have the memo to transmit the memo to the Academic Council urging them to transmit it to the Regents. The motion was approved unanimously. Revised BOARS proposal: Chair Cogswell indicated that the BOARS issue was a very important item and he would like the members to review it. He indicated that he was organizing a meeting with the Admissions Staff to better understand the implications of the new eligibility proposal. He is concerned about the need to rush the proposal through. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Sellyna Ehlers Executive Director Academic Senate

RECONSTITUTION OF THE UCR A. GARY ANDERSON GRADUATE

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (AGSM) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE

B.S. DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO AGSM

University of California Riverside

November 27, 2007 Approved:

Business Administration Program Committee, December. 5, 2007

AGSM Executive Committee, December 7, 2007

AGSM Faculty, December 20, 2007

7

Reconstituting AGSM 1

SUMMARY

This is a revision of the proposal to reconstitute the A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of

Management (AGSM) at the UC Riverside (UCR), and to transfer the granting authority of

the B.S. degree in Business Administration from the UCR College of Humanities, Arts, and

Social Sciences to the reconstituted AGSM. The original proposal was approved by the

Riverside Division of the Academic Senate on November 22, 2005, and was submitted for

approval by the UC system wide committees on January 19, 2006. The Academic Council

and Assembly of the Academic Senate decided in May 2006 to table the approval of the

proposal until UCR responds to the concerns that were raised by the two Committees:

University Committee on Planning and Budget (UCPB), and University Committee on

Educational Policy (UCEP).

In this revision we respond fully to all the concerns that were raised by the above two

committees. The concerns raised by UCPB in its April 11, 2006 report deal with the issue of

leadership at AGSM, especially the dean and the chairs of the departments, and the issue of

faculty resources. These two issues have been resolved; the school has since hired a highly

qualified and experienced dean, the two chairs from philosophy have been replaced: one by

an experienced AGSM faculty at the full professor rank, and the other by a former AGSM

faculty who is currently in the Economics Department at UCR and has excellent leadership.

Also faculty resources are in line with what is required. In addition, the new dean has

appointed an experienced, senior member of the AGSM faculty as the associate dean for the

undergraduate program and has hired a very experienced full time director of the program.

The latter staff member brings more than 15 years of similar experience at the Marshall

School of Business at the University of Southern California, a program that made enormous

improvement over the past decade and a half and that routinely ranks among the top 10

undergraduate business programs.

The concerns of UCEP, as stated in its April 10, 2006 report, deal with several issues; they

include issues of admission, advising, curriculum, faculty resources and deployment, and the

role of AGSM in the Business Administration Program at UCR. It appears that most of

8

Reconstituting AGSM 2

UCEP’s concerns may have emanated from lack of information in the original proposal about

the role of AGSM in the Business Administration Program at UCR, and the evolution of this

program since its inception in the fall of 1985. These issues are fully addressed in this

revision.

I. Introduction

Currently The A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management (AGSM) at UC Riverside

is chartered to offer only graduate degrees. In this proposal it is requested that AGSM be

reconstituted to award the B.S. degree in Business Administration in addition to graduate

degrees. The reconstituted school will be called College of Business (COB), which will house

both the Anderson Graduate School of Management and the Undergraduate Business Program. The

B.S. degree is currently conferred by UCR College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

(CHASS); however the program has been managed, staffed and operated by AGSM since its

inception in 1985.

The request is a simple one given the affiliation and involvement of AGSM in the

undergraduate Business Administration Program (BAP) at UCR. While the program is

governed by a joint committee consisting of eight Academic Senate members, four from

AGSM including its dean and the chair of the committee and four from CHASS including its

dean, AGSM has played the primary role in the design, development, and delivery of the

program and its subsequent revisions; it continues to operate and manage the program

including admission and advising of its students, and teaching most of its business

administration courses. In fact this involvement provides AGSM with most of its FTE faculty

lines. AGSM provides for the staffing of the Office of Undergraduate Programs (OUP),

which acts as the administrative office for the BAP. AGSM had conducted self-studies of the

program, and all the required periodic and critical reviews ordered by the Committee on

Educational Policy of the UCR Division of the Academic Senate. It has regularly revised the

curriculum, and has maintained the program on par with the best of public business

administration programs in the country. AGSM has also maintained BAP’s compliance with

all standards of the national accreditation agency for business education in USA, known as

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Virtually all business

9

Reconstituting AGSM 3

courses within the program are staffed by faculty members or lecturers with primary

appointments in AGSM. However, due to the current charter of AGSM, the B.S. degree in

Business Administration at UCR continues to be conferred by CHASS.

The desire to reconstitute AGSM and grant it the authority to award the B.S. degree in

Business Administration in addition to graduate degrees was included in UCR’s

Perspectives for the years 2004/09, 2005/10 and 2006/11. It is stated in UCR 2004/09

Perspective, “AGSM would resume full responsibility for the undergraduate B.S. degree in

Business Administration. This requires authorization for AGSM to offer the Bachelors degree

and should be accompanied by a change in the name of the school from Graduate School of

Management to College of Business.”

II. Objectives of the Business Administration Program

The Business Administration Program at UCR is an upper division program that was

designed and approved in the academic year 1984/85. Students are admitted to the Business

Administration Program in their late sophomore or early junior years through an admissions

process coordinated by AGSM. The program continues to adhere to its original mission of

providing a high quality University of California education in business administration based

on strong grounding in liberal arts and sciences. This mission is wholly consistent with the

mission of the University of California. The Master Plan for Higher Education in California

states that the University of California shall provide instructions in the liberal arts, sciences,

and in the professions. The objectives of the undergraduate degree in business administration

will not change as a result of the proposed reorganization; these objectives are:

• To provide leadership training in management strongly grounded in the social sciences.

• To equip students with the ability to identify, analyze, and provide solutions to business

problems.

• To provide students with the knowledge in functional areas of management.

• To offer a degree program which meets the accreditation standards of the Association

to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).

10

Reconstituting AGSM 4

The program continues to compare very favorably with some of the best liberal arts oriented

business administration programs in the country. The latest self-study that was conducted

shortly before its accreditation by AACSB in April 2003 shows that it is at par with the

business administration programs at UC Berkeley, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of Virginia. The transfer of the

degree to the reconstituted AGSM will not change the objectives or pedagogical

characteristics of the program. It will change and streamline the management of the program.

This change in program management should have the effect of simplifying governance and

making program change and innovation easier and more frequent. Curriculum change and

program innovation are important for responding to the changing business environment, to

shifting business practices, and to the program innovations of competitor business schools.

The shift of governance to a single academic unit on the UCR campus should also have a

positive impact on student retention.

III. Administration of the Program

The transfer of the B.S. degree in Business Administration to the reconstituted AGSM,

College of Business, will strengthen the program as it simplifies the governance of the

program, and provides a home for its students. As observed above, this should have the effect

of increasing program innovation and currency, increasing responsiveness to students and the

requirements of employers, and increase student retention. These positive outcomes will arise

from improvements in governance, admission, advising, curriculum, and resources.

1. Governance: Although the BAP is currently the largest major in UCR it does not have an

independent governing body whose primary function is to serve the major and its students.

The B.S. degree in Business Administration is operated by AGSM and conferred by CHASS.

The policies governing the degree are first developed and approved by the BAP Committees,

then they are approved by the executive committees of both colleges (AGSM and CHASS),

before they are forwarded to the appropriate Academic Senate committees. The BAP

Committee consists of eight voting members; four from AGSM and four from CHASS. The

four from AGSM include the dean, and three AGSM faculty members including the chair of

the committee who is appointed by the dean of AGSM. The chair of the committee is

11

Reconstituting AGSM 5

currently the associate dean for undergraduate programs within AGSM. The Director of the

Undergraduate Business Program is also an ex officio member of the committee. The four

members of the committee from CHASS include the dean, and faculty members representing

the departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology. The committee composition

has to be approved annually by the two respective executive committees of AGSM and

CHASS.

The BAP Committee has worked well on policy issues and helped evolve the program over

time to the state it is in today; but it falls short on managing the tactical and operational

issues. Consequently, transfer of the degree to the reconstituted AGSM should improve the

management of these issues, facilitate innovation, and contribute to student retention by

placing responsibility for students’ education experience within the domain of a single

academic unit. The present organizational structure assures that any change in policy or

curriculum for the program will take a longer time to approve if compared to programs

managed by independent departments. The diffusion of responsibilities for the program

structure and for students’ experience also reduces incentives for attending to such matters.

The BAP Committee is not involved in course offerings or scheduling. Similarly, the

committee does not address the deployment of faculty to courses and classes; and it is not

involved in monitoring quality of instructions. All these issues are the domain of the

participating departments that teach the courses.

The present organization of the undergraduate business program is virtually unique among

such programs. Most business schools operate both the undergraduate and graduate

programs. A few Universities have separated the graduate and undergraduate business

schools as separate academic units, e.g. University of Virginia and Wake Forest University,

but even this organizational structure is rare and does not diffuse the responsibility for

individual programs across different academic units. Even in those cases where there are

separate schools for the undergraduate and graduate business programs the result has been

that the reputation of the undergraduate program has suffered relative to the MBA program

located on the same campus. The present organization of the undergraduate program in

12

Reconstituting AGSM 6

business at UCR contributes to diminished visibility and reputation for the undergraduate

business program.

Students, their parents, and recruiters from the business community are often confused by the

current organizational structure of the undergraduate business program. Students at various

stages of study come to AGSM advisors for advice when they are supposed to go to

counselors in CHASS and vice-versa. Many students graduate without knowing to which

school or department they belong. This confusion has been reduced by elaborate orientation

programs involving academic advisors and associate deans from AGSM and CHASS, and by

regular meetings and on going communications between the OUP in AGSM and the Student

Affairs Office in CHASS. Confusion remains, however. Corporate recruiters are often

unclear about whether UCR offers an undergraduate business degree. At minimum, the

current organizational structure of the undergraduate business program reduces its visibility

and reputation among prospective students and recruiters, necessitating unnecessary effort to

explain the program.

Once the B.S. degree in Business Administration is transferred to AGSM, the joint Business

Administration Program Committee (specified above) will be disestablished and replaced

with a structure similar to that at HAAS in UC Berkeley and other similar institutions. The

Office of Undergraduate Programs at AGSM will be the home/department for the program.

OUP has been restructured and strengthened in preparation for this request (to restructure

AGSM and transfer the authority to grant the B.S. degree in Business Administration to it). It

currently consists of six individuals: Associate dean for Undergraduate Business Programs,

who is an experienced and tenured AGSM faculty, an experienced Director for

Undergraduate Business Programs, three qualified and highly experienced student advisors,

and one administrative assistant. This team can be increased if need arises. Also this team

works very closely with the AGSM faculty, Dean, AGSM Executive Committee, the Pre-

business Office at CHASS, UCR Registrar, and with Transfer Students Center at UCR. The

OUP is located in a newly modeled section of AGSM in Anderson Hall, enjoying state of the

13

Reconstituting AGSM 7

art information technology, and supported by AGSM technology advisors. It is well accessed

by Pre-business and Business Administration students and faculty.

2. Admission Process: The BAP is an upper division (junior and senior) program. It attracts

high quality and well motivated students from diverse backgrounds. Most are domestic

students from Southern California. Students apply for admission into the program after they

complete the college breadth requirements and the business administration pre-requisites

(more on these requirements in the section on Curriculum). About 60% of the students

admitted into the major are from the freshmen who joined UCR two years earlier as pre-

business students. The remaining 40% are transfer students from other departments in UCR,

other UC campuses, but mostly from the California community college system. Table 1

below shows the enrollment data for the last seven years. Pre-business students in UCR are

advised and supervised by the Pre-business Office in CHASS. This office coordinates its

activities with the Office of Undergraduate Programs in AGSM and will continue to do so

after the transfer of the BAP to AGSM.

Table 1 indicates that about one third of the entering Pre-business students make it to the

major two years later. The attrition that occurs is not unusual across universities that offer

upper division undergraduate programs in business and is largely due to:

• Normal attrition in the first two, pre-business, years.

• Change to other majors such as those in Table 2 early on before applying for admission

into the major.

• Or the students do not meet the requirements for admission to the undergraduate

business program, especially the 2.5 cumulative GPA requirement. These students

generally migrate to other majors in UCR, especially those identified in Table 2.

Most of these alternative majors have a business administration flavor and make

complete use of students’ pre-business preparation.

Table 2 shows the enrollment data in eight of the majors that require some business

administration course work. For instance, the B.S. in Information Systems offered by

14

Reconstituting AGSM 8

Computer Science in the School of Engineering requires ten business courses. The minor in

Business Administration requires seven courses. The others, which all are cooperative majors

in CHASS departments, each requires five business courses. This shows that a pre-business

or a transfer student who could not be admitted into the Business Administration major can

easily move to another major in UCR without a loss of time or any of the breadth and/or the

business major pre-requisites that he/she has completed.

Students (pre-business or transfer) can apply for admission into the major towards the end of

the sophomore or beginning of the junior year. They apply after they have completed, or are

about to complete, college breadth requirements and business major pre-requisites. These are

normally completed after earning no less than 75 units and without exceeding 100 quarter

units. Hence the student must apply for admission before exceeding 100 quarter units. In

some exceptional circumstances, students are allowed to apply even after they have exceeded

the 100-unit limit by petitioning the director of OUP. Students can not apply for admission to

the undergraduate business program more than twice. All applications, whether a first time

application or second time application must be completed prior to the completion of 100-

units. The idea is to enable interested students to get into the major if qualified, or to find an

alternative major before taking other courses that may not help them in the alternative major.

The application is submitted to the Office of Undergraduate Programs in AGSM anytime the

student feels that he/she has completed or is about to complete the requirements for

admission. Applications are collected, then processed by OUP staff four times within the

academic year: Fall, Winter, Spring, and Summer. Admission into the program is competitive

and it is well advertised to students through orientation programs and advising. It is based on

the cumulative GPA (currently it is set at 2.5), a personal statement, and letters of

recommendation. Once the student is admitted, he/she completes an orientation program, and

is advised by AGSM’s staff in the OUP.

The program is competitive and enrollment is limited. Initially in 1984/85 enrollment was

limited to a total of 250 students. As UCR grew student demand for the program increased;

as a result the program was revised in 1989/90 to provide for more flexibility in its

15

Reconstituting AGSM 9

requirements, and a dynamic quota was established. The new quota allowed enrollment in the

program to increase proportionally to the increase in UCR’s undergraduate population; the

quota was set to 6.5% of the undergraduate population. In the latest evaluation of the

program, which culminated in the requirements presented in Appendix I, the quota was set to

a total of 1200 students (as measured by the fall quarter 3rd week figures). The latest

revisions of the curriculum and requirements were approved by the UCR Division of the

Academic Senate on November 22, 2005; and they are currently implemented.

Table 1: Record of Enrollment in Business Administration Program & Its Two Input

Segments at UCR

Academic Year

Pre-Business Students*

Total Transfer Students*

Total Business Administration*

Total No. of

Graduates2001/02 1,577 320 1,032 602 2002/03 1,602 334 1,132 650 2003/04 1,443 269 1,288 742 2004/05 1,160 250 1,172 679 2005/06 1,050 314 1,180 626 2006/07 1,134 270 1,186 645 2007/08 1,170 262 1,116

* Data recorded at the end of the third week of the fall quarter within the academic year.

Table 2: Majors in UCR with some Business Administration Courses Required

Academic Year

Bus. minor

B.S. in Inf.

Systems

Art History

/ AS* History

/ AS* Pol. Sci.

/ AS* Sociology

/ AS* Econ./

AS* Bus. Econ.

2001/02 9 1 10 16 43 99 32 172 2002/03 10 45 6 21 34 90 31 210 2003/04 10 63 13 21 26 92 63 255 2004/05 10 63 12 16 22 93 117 332 2005/06 17 41 19 22 30 85 145 346 2006/07 11 35 22 20 28 70 158 377 2007/08 18 39 24 28 27 60 186 358

*AS in the above five cooperative majors stands for “Administrative Studies, which is a major that existed in

UCR and was disestablished few years after the B.S. degree in business Administration was established. These

cooperative majors continue to use the AS in their titles.

16

Reconstituting AGSM 10

3. Student Advising: Students in Business Administration continue to enjoy one-on-one

advising with full-time professional academic advisors, as well as significant advice and

information that is available on-line. Students are advised by the staff of the Office of

Undergraduate Programs in AGSM. OUP employs six individuals: an associate dean for the

undergraduate program, a full time director of the undergraduate program, three professional

academic advisors, and an administrative assistant. The advisors, with the assistance of the

director and the associate dean evaluate the applications and issue admission letters. AGSM

faculty support is available if needed. Each admitted student enjoys a personalized advising

session with one of the professional academic advisors where the degree requirements are

explained and a study plan is established. Advising thereafter is available in two separate

settings: one through the open hours of the professional advising staff who are available for

walk-in appointments during certain hours every week, and one through individualized

appointments. The OUP also provides advising through the electronic media and the AGSM

website. Advisors also provide workshops to pre-business in conjunction with the Pre-

Business Office in CHASS, and to transfer students about the pre-requisites for the major and

the application process. Efforts are being made to reach out to students in other settings such

as student dorms and through working with the Students Transfer Center on UCR to work

with California Community College system.

4. Curriculum: The B.S degree in Business Administration at UCR is strongly grounded in

liberal arts education. Transfer of the program to the reconstituted AGSM will not alter this

characterization. The curriculum consists of five segments; Appendix I shows the complete

requirements of the program. These are:

a. College Breadth Requirements: All pre-business students must complete the CHASS

breadth requirements; these consist of five courses in humanities, four in social

sciences, five courses in natural sciences in addition to three courses in English, three

courses in foreign language (or acquiring of third level competency), and a course in

ethnic studies. These requirements, at the lower division, are comparable to their

counterparts in excellent undergraduate business programs such as those of UC

Berkeley, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U. of Michigan, and U of Virginia. In

17

Reconstituting AGSM 11

fact the UCR program exceeds its counterparts in most of the above categories.

Transfer students from the UCR College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences (CNAS)

or Bourns College of Engineering (BCOE) have similar requirements. Transfer

students from California community college system have also similar requirements

through the articulation agreement and the Intersegmental General Education Transfer

Curriculum (IGETC). The broad, liberal arts education focus that characterizes the

pre-business portion of the UCR business program, carries over to the upper division

level. As described below in sections b, c and d some of the upper division business

requirements can be satisfied by taking liberal arts courses. This provides an

opportunity for undergraduate business students to develop breadth through exposure

to course work relevant to business but outside of the core business disciplines. This

breadth requirement also differentiates the undergraduate business program from the

MBA program, which tends to focus almost exclusively on preparation in business

disciplines.

b. Pre-requisites for the Major: These consist of eight courses. Only two of them are

business courses (BUS 10: Introduction to Business, and BUS 20: Financial

Accounting and Reporting). The other six are in the social and natural sciences, and

they can count toward the college breadth requirements. The breadth requirements and

pre-requisites for the undergraduate business program can be completed in the first

two years of enrollment.

c. Business Core Requirements: These required business courses consist of the ten

courses specified in Appendix I. They capture the standard curriculum required by

AACSB as a basis for accreditation. These requirements provide a broad knowledge

of all functional areas of business and are consistent with the goal of developing

breadth in the educational experience of undergraduate business students. Two of

these requirements can be satisfied by courses taken in some of the departments at

CHASS such as Political Science, Sociology, Philosophy, and Psychology. Core

courses are usually completed in the third year of enrollment.

d. Concentration Courses: To be competitive in the market for their business education

undergraduate business students generally find initial employment after graduation in

a specific business function, such as accounting, marketing, finance, human resources

18

Reconstituting AGSM 12

or other areas. Some professional certification requirements, such as eligibility to take

the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exam, also require specific amounts and types

of course work. In order to prepare students for work in a business function and to

assure that UCR graduates meet the requirements for professional certification in areas

where it is required, the undergraduate business program requires that students

complete a minimum number of courses in a specific business function. These focused

functional courses are called a concentration. Concentrations offered within the

general business administration major and are common features of undergraduate

business programs. Such concentrations also support the student advising function by

providing students with clearly identified groups of courses that will prepare them for

specific career opportunities or for eligibility for professional certification. For

example, a concentration in accounting would be defined by the courses required for

eligibility to take the CPA examination.

The most recent review and revision of the business administration program resulted

in the creation of twelve concentrations. These were created to provide for more

flexibility for the students, and to allow for a certain degree of specialization. The

functional concentration consists of an additional five courses beyond those in the

general business core, which were described in c above. These concentrations are

listed in Appendix II. At least six of these concentrations rely on taking upper division

courses in departments in the other colleges of UCR (BCOE, CHASS, and CNAS).

Such concentrations are consistent with the objective of providing undergraduate

business students with a broad educational experience while still assuring that students

are adequately prepared for careers in business and professional certification. The

availability of a range of concentrations allows students to benefit from faculty

strengths within AGSM and across UCR. The cross college concentrations provide a

means for meeting students’ interests in integrating business management with other

educational experiences within the larger campus. These courses are usually taken in

the senior year.

e. Upper division business electives: These elective courses consist of three upper

division courses. Student can add them to increase his/her focus/depth in a

19

Reconstituting AGSM 13

concentration, or to focus toward a specific career. Students who wish to graduate

with more than 180 units can choose to take more electives should they wish to do so.

The design of the program, including the availability of electives both within specific

business disciplines and in relevant disciplines outside of the business disciplines

provides students with the opportunity to pursue a broad education and

simultaneously prepare for a career and qualify for national certifying exams, such as

the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Certified Financial Analyst (CFA).

5. Faculty Resources: BAP generates FTE faculty lines for all of the participating schools

and departments in a manner proportional to their involvement in the program. At the pre-

requisite and upper division levels these departments include AGSM, Art, Computer Science,

Engineering, Economics, Political Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, and

Statistics. AGSM teaches two of the pre-requisite courses (BUS 10 and BUS 20), at least

eight of the ten core courses, many of the concentration courses, and most of the business

electives. Consequently, AGSM generates most of its FTE faculty lines from this program. It

also deploys its ladder rank faculty in teaching and serving this program. AGSM currently

has 24 ladder rank faculty, two visitors, four full time lecturers, and numerous part-time

lecturers. AGSM is currently involved in an aggressive faculty recruiting campaign intended

to add at least ten ladder faculty members for the fall of 2008. This would bring the total

active faculty to 40, including all ladder faculty, visitors, and full time lecturers. The School

is currently budgeted for 39.5 FTE. Given the current enrollment of the School (1116

undergraduate students and 125 MBA students) this faculty size will provide for the faculty

to student ratio mandated by the accreditation agency AACSB, which is 1:25.

6. Accreditation of the Program: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of

Business (AACSB International) promotes academic standards for business programs that

focus on curriculum, resources, and currency of the faculty in their fields. The curriculum

standards determine the basic requirements for a degree in business administration. Standards

for faculty resources maintains that the faculty to student ratio to be no less than 1:25 on one

hand, that over 60% of the faculty must be academically qualified, and that over 90% must

20

Reconstituting AGSM 14

be academically and/or professionally qualified (a professionally qualified faculty member

would be one with significant business experience). Academic and professional qualifications

are specified and are a function of the mission of the school and university. Business

administration programs are evaluated on these standards. Those that satisfy or exceed these

standards are accredited for a certain period of time after which they must come back for re-

accreditation.

Accreditation is important for students, faculty and employers. It indicates that an accredited

program has met or exceeded the minimum standards required for a degree in business

administration, and that the program is true to its mission. It indicates quality. Prospective

faculty prefer to be hired by schools/colleges with accredited programs, some employers hire

graduates of only accredited programs, some employers support the continuing education of

their employees only if they attend accredited programs. The BAP at UCR was accredited in

April 2003 and it is up for reaccreditation. Transferring the degree to the reconstituted

AGSM will make the reaccreditation process easier as it provides for a more focused

governing structure for the program, and provides the students with a well defined home.

Appendix I: Curriculum of the B.S. Degree in Business Administration at UCR

Requirements for the B.S. degree in Business Administration include the following five

segments:

1. Breadth Requirements of the college from which they enter. In case of CHASS,

where the Pre-business students are, the B. S. degree breadth requirements are:

English Composition: Varies

Humanities: 20 units

Social Sciences: 16 units

Natural Sciences and Mathematics: 20 units

Ethnicity: 4 units

Foreign Language (level 3): 12 units

2. Prerequisites:

2.1 General Prerequisites: (6 Courses, 27 Units) (may be applied toward breadth

requirements)

21

Reconstituting AGSM 15

Economics 4, Introduction to Economics (5 units)

Computer Science 8, Introduction to Computing (4 units)

Mathematics 22, Calculus for Business (5 units)

Statistics 48, Statistics for Business (5 units)

Economics 102A, Microeconomic Theory (4 units)

Economics 103A, Macroeconomic Theory (4 units)

2.2 Major Prerequisites: (2 Courses, 8 Units)

Business Administration 10, Introduction to Business (4 units)

Business Administration 20, Financial Accounting and Reporting (4 units)

3. Core Requirements: (10 Courses, 40 – 48 Units):

Business Administration (BUS) 100, Management Communication

Business Administration (BUS) 101, Information Technology Management

Business Administration (BUS) 102, Ethics and Law in Business and Society

Or PHIL 116 and either POSC 182 or POSC 186

Business Administration (BUS) 103, Marketing and Distribution Management

Business Administration (BUS) 104, Decision Analysis and Management Science

Business Administration (BUS) 105, Production and Operations Management

Business Administration (BUS) 106, Financial Theories and Markets

Business Administration (BUS) 107, Organizational Behavior

Or PSYC 142 and either SOC 150 or SOC 151

Business Administration (BUS) 108, Financial Evaluation and Managerial Analysis

Business Administration (BUS) 109, Competitive and Strategic Analysis

4. Concentration: (5 Upper Division Courses, 20 Units); please see Appendix II

5. Business Electives: (3 Upper Division BUS Courses, 12 Units)

Appendix II: Concentrations Offered within the B.S. Degree in Business

Administration

Concentration: Choose five courses (20 units), from a larger menu of courses, for any of the

twelve concentrations listed below. The courses are selected with the approval of an advisor.

Courses completed to meet upper division core requirements may not be used to meet

22

Reconstituting AGSM

16

concentration requirements. The Concentration will appear on the transcript, but does not

appear on the diploma.

• Accounting

• Arts Management

• Environmental Management

• Financial Economics

• General Management

• Human Resource Management

• Information Systems management

• International Management

• Managerial Economics

• Marketing

• Operations and Supply Chain Management

• Public Policy and Management

23

Riverside: Office of the Academic Senate COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL

March 12, 2008 To: Thomas Cogswell Chair, Riverside Division Academic Senate Fr: Christopher Chase-Dunn Chair, Committee on Academic Personnel Re: Reconstitution of the AGSM and the transfer of the BS Degree in Business Administration to AGSM CAP discussed the proposed reconstitution of AGSM and the transfer of the B.S. degree in Business Administration from CHASS to the Anderson Graduate School of Business. There was strong support for the efforts to expand the mandate of AGSM to undergraduate education. CAP noted with approval that the proposed curriculum for the undergraduate major remains a broad interdisciplinary approach with substantial prerequisites in social sciences and the humanities. CAP notes that the relevant UCR Academic Senate Committees should be consulted regarding any future changes in the requirements for the Business Administration major.

24

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA

March 6, 2008 TO: THOMAS COGSWELL, CHAIR RIVERSIDE DIVISION

FR: PIERRE KELLER, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY RE: AGSM PROPOSAL TO RECONSTITUTE AND TRANSFER THE B.S. IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO AGSM The CEP met on March 5 and discussed the proposal to reconstitute and transfer the B.S. in Business Administration to AGSM. We voted unanimously in favor of the proposal (5 Yes votes, 0 No votes, 1 Abstention from an AGSM member in virtue of conflict of interest). CEP has concluded that with the addition of a new permanent Dean, the recruitment of new advising staff, and the plan to hire ten new ladder rank faculty in order to replace lecturers in AGSM, the transfer is now on a much firmer footing than when it was initially proposed and later tabled at the systemwide level. The concerns that we had as a committee at the time of the initial transfer proposal have been addressed in the new proposal. We would also note that the transfer, if and when it is implemented, will help satisfy a request from the AACSB accreditation board. Since the initial proposal was tabled at the systemwide level, we would encourage AGSM to strengthen the case that it makes for the transfer by soliciting expert evaluation of the implications of the proposed transfer. By soliciting outside letters that evaluate the strength of the plan and program, concerns that may still linger from the initial abortive transfer can effectively be addressed. Most importantly, we feel a letter from those involved in the undergraduate program at UC Berkeley would help the reviewing parties with advice from a well established and also otherwise comparable program.

25

RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

MARCH 14, 2008 TO: THOMAS COGSWELL, CHAIR RIVERSIDE DIVISION FM: ANTHONY NORMAN, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND BUDGET RE: REORGANIZATION OF UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAM This proposal is a revision of a previous proposal approved by the UCR campus. The revision has addressed the reasons for the deferral of a decision at the system level. First, with regard to administration, the A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCR has hired a Permanent Dean, David Stewart. The school also has assigned an experienced associate dean to oversee the program. Second, the Undergraduate Program Office has hired a new full time director from USC with 15 years experience running the undergraduate business program, in addition to advising staff (three staff members). This seems to be an improved governance structure and in line with what is being done at other business schools. Lastly, the school is currently hiring additional faculty members. Moreover, it is important to note that no new classes or new faculty would be needed. As for the curriculum, the program offers 12 concentrations (shown on page 16) in most recent curriculum revision. These “tracks” provide advice and guidance to supplement advising staff. These concentrations bring it in line with concentrations offered by other business schools. It is important to note that the revised proposal is approved by CHASS, AGSM, and the Business Administration Program Committee (BAPC) and supported by both of the Deans of AGSM and CHASS. This transfer will accomplish the following for UCR/AGSM as described in the proposal:

• It will streamline the management and ownership of the program. • It will bring UCR’s undergraduate business program model in line with other

UC business schools with undergraduate programs (e.g. UCI and UC Berkeley).

• It will address UCR campus-wide retention issues (many students find the lack of a “home” confusing).

• It will increase the visibility and the marketability of the program from UCR’s standpoint (this is especially important given UCI’s introduction of an undergraduate business program).

• It will help with reaccreditation of AGSM/UCR’s business programs since this unusual structure has been a concern of previous accreditation visitation teams.

• Last but not the least, it might also enable UCR out-reach efforts since there will be one central point of contact with the business community at AGSM.

26

RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

The members of the Committee on Planning and Budget voted unanimously to approve this reorganization.

27

28

April 10, 2008

Reorganization of the UCR Division of the Academic Senate Organizational Structure and Functional Relationships

Introduction

The Special Committee on Academic Senate Reorganization was appointed by UCR’s Division Chair to examine the possibility of reorganizing the Riverside Division of the Academic Senate and provide the Chair with recommendations on this issue. We are looking for an organization that achieves the following objectives and believe that meeting these objectives will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Senate in its role of shared governance.

1. Senate committee functions and interactions between committees are more transparent.

2. The decision-making authority of the various units is clarified.

3. The Division structure facilitates better communication with existing administrative units.

4. There is better coordination between standing Senate committees and joint Senate/administrative committees.

5. Redundant and disproportionate workloads between committees are reduced.

6. Staff time and expertise are used more efficiently.

As preparation, the committee collected information on the divisional senates at the other campuses. In some cases, little information was available, other than their bylaws. Perhaps the most useful source was the Division at UCSB. In 2000, a task force on academic senate reorganization was appointed. This committee spent a large amount of time examining this issue and systems at other UC campuses, and we found the document that this committee issued in November 2001 to be very informative. Our committee also solicited preliminary comments from the Chairs of all the standing Senate committees at UCR and the Senate staff that support these committees. All of this material is available in the Senate office.

After reviewing and discussing this information, we are proposing a new structure for the UCR Division. This structure is similar to that adopted by UCSB and attempts to address some of the same objectives listed above. While this document proposes an overall structure for the Division with a rough model for the functional relationship between the units, we have not yet addressed many of the specifics that pertain to this new structure. Some of these unresolved issues include the membership and selection process of the councils and committees and the role of ad hoc and joint Senate/administrative committees. Also, the detailed relationship between the councils and committees including the authority and jurisdiction of the various units within the Senate will require more discussion. Before moving forward on these specifics, the committee would like tentative approval of the items discussed in this document. After this, a more complete proposal of a new Division organization, incorporating comments on this document, will be submitted to the standing committees for review. Once the final proposal is approved, new bylaws will have to be written, and an implementation plan will have to be formulated.

New Organizational Structure

Our recommendation is to adopt a Division structure that is based on a limited number of councils, as shown in Chart 1. The councils will have broad oversight for major and well defined areas of authority that are important to the Senate. Listed below each council are the committees that represent more specific areas within the authority of the council. The objective is to cluster related areas of the Senate in such a way that their interrelationship is more obvious and with a more hierarchical structure that better defines their decision-making authority and distributes workload more effectively.

Within the new structure there would be four councils representing undergraduate education, graduate education, research and instructional resources, and faculty welfare and awards. In addition to the

29

April 10, 2008

councils that represent these specific areas, there would be an Executive Council with oversight on all issues of interest to the Senate.

On the left side of Chart 1 are the present standing Senate committees. The color-coding of the committee names provides a rough indication of each committee’s workload.

Committees with high workloads are indicated in red (meetings per year > 7) Committees with average workloads are indicated in black (3 ≤ meetings per year ≤ 7) Committees with below average workloads are indicated in green (2 ≤ meetings per year < 3) Committees with very low workloads are indicated in blue (meetings per year < 2)

The workload was determined by the last three-year average of the number of meetings per year. No adjustment was made for the duration of the meetings. Off-line workload is not reflected and may vary considerably from committee to committee.

On the right of Chart 1 is our proposed structure for the Division. At the top is the Executive Council, and below this are the four area-specific councils and the six college executive committees. Also listed below the Executive Council are four committees that did not seem appropriate to include in any of the area-specific councils: Academic Personnel, Committee on Committees, Planning & Budget, and Rules & Jurisdiction. These committees are of great enough importance to warrant their own representation on the proposed Executive Council. Below each area-specific council are the committees within their cluster. The dashed lines connecting the two structures indicate how the purview of each existing committee would be distributed among the new councils and committees. In some cases workload adjustments were made by either dividing an existing committee’s responsibility into two or more new committees or combining two existing committees into a single new committee. Overall, the total number of units making-up the Division remains about the same.

One of the objectives discussed above is to provide a Division structure that more closely parallels the administrative structure to better facilitate communication between the two branches of governance. The customary relationship between the administrative and new Division structure is shown in Chart 2 to illustrate their alignment. In a few cases, administrators could be ex-officio members of Senate councils and committees.

Council Responsibility and Authority

An important objective is to delegate sufficient authority to various units within the Senate to ensure authoritative decision outcomes that benefit the Division as a whole. Each council will have broad oversight within its area of authority with the intention of focusing on general policy making and the formulation of procedures and guidelines. The committees within each cluster would concentrate on details and implementation.

New items of business, especially ones pertaining to general policies, will come to the Division either through the Division Chair or the Executive Council. The Division Chair, possibly in consultation with the Executive Council, determines which council(s) has jurisdiction. The assigned council(s) must respond in a judicious and timely manner with input from appropriate committees within its cluster when appropriate. Councils would have responsibility for prioritizing issues, routing them through their cluster and determining what actions are required of their committees (e.g., level of review or approval). The Executive Council or Division Chair can also require that any committee under a council respond to an issue.

Routine matters of business can go directly to the council or committee with jurisdiction, and it is from this point that the business exits the Division unless standard procedures dictate otherwise or concerns warrant broader action. For example, course changes enter the Senate at the college executive committee, go directly from there to Courses and then to the Register’s office if approved, bypassing the overseeing council. Grievances will also go directly to Privilege and Tenure, bypassing the Council on Faculty

30

April 10, 2008

Welfare and Awards. For committees, these procedures must be delineated in their bylaws. A council’s workload associated with routine business should not impede its ability to act on general policy issues, and for cases where this does become a problem, the task should be delegated to an existing or newly created committee within its cluster. All business that leaves the Division at a level below the Executive Council must be reported to the Division Chair in a timely fashion.

Each council will have authority over the bylaws that govern not only the council but also all the committees within its cluster. All bylaw changes must be approved by the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction, the Executive Council and voted on by the full Senate at a Division meeting.

Committee Membership

Ward Beyermann, Division Vice Chair (Committee Chair) Lynda Bell, CHASS Rich Cardullo, CNAS Wilfred Chen, BCOE Joe Childers, CHASS Helen Henry, CNAS Piotr Gorecki, Chair, R&J

31

April 10, 2008

Chart 1: New Organizational Structure of the Division

Advisory Committee

Committee on Committee

Planning & Budget

Rules & Jurisdiction

Educational Policy

Courses

Graduate Council

International Education

Preparatory Education

Scholarships & Honors

Undergraduate Council

University Extension

Executive Council

Committee on Committee

Planning & Budget

Rules & Jurisdiction

Undergraduate Council

Courses

International Education

Preparatory Education

Undergraduate Scholarships & Honors

Undergraduate Admissions

Undergraduate Program Review

University Extension & Summer Secession

Graduate Council

Graduate Program Review

Graduate Scholarships & Fellowships

Academic Personnel Academic Personnel

32

April 10, 2008

Physical Resources Planning

Academic Computing & Information Technology

Library & Scholarly Communication

Research

Council on Research & Instructional Resources

Information Technology & Scholarly Communication

Research

Council on Faculty Welfare & Awards

Faculty Welfare

Academic Freedom Academic Freedom

Ad-hoc Charges (appointed by P&T when needed)

Charges

Faculty Awards (Research, Teaching, Service)

Distinguished Teaching

Diversity & Equal Opportunity

Diversity & Equal Opportunity

Faculty Research Lecturer

Executive Committee – AGSM

Privilege & Tenure Privilege & Tenure

Executive Committee – BCOE

Executive Committee – CNAS

Executive Committee – CHASS

Executive Committee – GSOE

Executive Committee – Biomed

Executive Committee – AGSM

Executive Committee – BCOE

Executive Committee – CNAS

Executive Committee – CHASS

Executive Committee – GSOE

Executive Committee – Biomed

33

April 10, 2008

Chart 2: Relationship between UCR’s Senate Division and Administration

Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost

Executive Council

Committee on Committee

Planning & Budget

Rules & Jurisdiction

Undergraduate Council

Courses

International Education

Preparatory Education

Undergraduate Scholarships & Honors

Undergraduate Admissions

Undergraduate Program Review

University Extension & Summer Secession

Graduate Council

Graduate Program Review

Graduate Scholarships & Fellowships

Academic Personnel

Vice Chancellor Administration

Vice Provost Academic Personnel

Vice Chancellor Academic Planning & Budget

Vice Provost Undergraduate Education

Graduate Division Dean

University Extension Dean

Vice Chancellor Student Affairs

Vice Chancellor Student Affairs

Summer Secession Dean

34

April 10, 2008

Council on Research & Instructional Resources

Information Technology & Scholarly Communication

Research

Council on Faculty Welfare & Awards

Academic Freedom

Ad-hoc Charges (appointed by P&T when needed)

Faculty Awards (Research, Teaching, Service)

Diversity & Equal Opportunity

Executive Committee – AGSM

Privilege & Tenure

Executive Committee – BCOE

Executive Committee – CNAS

Executive Committee – CHASS

Executive Committee – GSOE

Executive Committee – Biomed

Associate Vice Chancellor Computing & Communication

Special Assistance to Chancellor for Excellence & Diversity

Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost

Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost

AGSM Dean

BCOE Dean

CNAS Dean

CHASS Dean

GSOE Dean

Biomed Dean

Vice Chancellor Research

University Librarian

35